Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Item 1]

[00:00:05]

MAYOR MILLER: WE'LL COME TO ORDER. THIS IS THE CLAY ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING

NOVEMBER 13, 2019. WOULD YOU PLEASE TAKE ROLL? >> MEMBER CLARK

>> HERE >> MEMBER >> MEMBER ROLAND WILL BE ARRIVING LATE. CHAIRMAN: SINCE WE HAVE TWO VACANCIES AT THIS POINT WE'RE GOING TO SEAT BOTH ALTERNATES. WHEN MR. ROLAND GETS HERE, YOU WILL BE AN ALTERNATE AGAIN.

THAT'S FINE. GOOD ENOUGH. ALL RIGHT. FIRST CASE WE'RE GOING TO HEAR IS 2.1. CASE IS DEALING WITH THE

[Item 2]

CONSERVATION DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH. AND WE'RE THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD STAFF. THIS EVENING WE ARE WRAPPING UP AN EFFORT TO LOOK AT THE CITY INITIATED IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR TO REVIEW ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S DIRECTION WITH ITS LAND DEVELOPMENT OR FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND THE CORRESPONDING ZONING MAP. WE DID IDENTIFY SEVERAL CONFLICTS THAT HAD BEEN THE CITY IS THE APPLICANT ON ALL OF THE CHANGES. TO RECONCILE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP WITH THE ZONING MAP. IN TERMS OF WHY WE'RE DOING THIS NOW IT WAS DIRECTED THROUGH FORMAL ACTION IN ORDINANCE 2019-05 IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR IN ORDER TO MAKE THE CHANGES TO EVALUATE THE EXTENT WORK CONFLICTS EXIST AND THEN TO FURTHER INITIATE ACTION TO CORRECT THEM. WHEN REVIEWING IT WE EVALUATED UNDER THE LANDS OF SEVERAL REVIEWING PRINCIPALS.

FOR THE SAKE OF THOSE NIGH A ATTENDANCE I'LL BE BRIEF. OF COURSE, WE HAVE OUR EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DIRECTIONS AND CORRESPONDING STATUTES WHICH I HAVE PROVIDED ON THE SLIDE. IN ADDITION TO THAT WE LOOKED AT SEVERAL CHARACTERISTICS AS GUIDING PRINCIPALS INCLUDING THE BUILD ENVIRONMENT OF THE GIVEN PIECE OF PROPERTY. WHAT'S ON THE GROUND TODAY AND WHAT'S NOT THERE TODAY. ONE WHAT DID THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY LOOK LIKE? WHAT IS IT LAND USE AND ZONING OF THOSE PROPERTIES WHICH SURROUND THAT PROPERTY AND WHAT ARE THE BUILT CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTIES TODAY? IN ADDITION WE LOOKED AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES OF THE PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE CONTAINED ON SITE. ARE THERE OTHER LAND USE OR ZONING CHANGES THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AT THE SAME TIME. AGAIN A MORE HOLISTIC VIEW. HOW DOES THE ALIGNMENT SERVE TO MEET THE CITY'S GENERAL DIRECTION AND POLICY IN TACT AS A WHOLE. WE ALSO KEPT IN MIND THAT THE 2011 FUTURE LAND USE MAP WAS ADOPTED AS PART OF OUR PRIOR EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REVIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BASED AMENDMENTS. THAT'S PRESUMED SO BE THE GUIDING MAP WHICH WE'RE USING AS THE BASE MAP TO MAKE CHANGES. WITH RESPECT TO THE DATA AND ANALYSIS THAT SERVE TO INFORM THESE CHANGES, WE LOOKED AT DATA THAT COULD BE DERIVED FROM THE NASSAU COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER MAP SYSTEM. INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES THAT ARE AVAILABLE, PROPERTY BOUNDARY, STREET CENTER LINES, WETLANDS, TOPOGRAPHY, FLOOD ZONES, OUR SOIL CONDITION AND EXISTING AERIAL FILES THAT ARE AVAILABLE. THIS WAS ALL USED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF REVIEWING THE LAND USE AND ZONING DISTRICTS OF A GIVEN PIECE OF PROPERTY.

BECAUSE THIS IS A FOLLOW-UP MEETING TO THE ACTION WHICH WAS CONSIDERED IN OCTOBER, THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF THE REMAINING PROPERTIES THAT THE BOARD HAS NOT TAKEN ACTION ON. THIS FIRST PROPERTY I'LL GO THROUGH VERY QUICKLY BECAUSE THIS IS A CORRECTION THAT WE NOTED FOR

[00:05:04]

ADVERTISING PURPOSES. HOWEVER, SINCE THEN, WE HAVE COME TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WAS AN ERA THAT EXISTED BECAUSE OF BASICALLY STAFF INACTION ON THE PLAN. SO, VERY QUICKLY, ASKINS AVENUE WAS A PROPERTY THAT HAD BEEN ADVERTISED. THIS IS FOUR PIECES OF PROPERTY. AND IN REVIEW OF THE DATA SURROUNDING THIS PROPERTY, WE CAME TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY HAD INITIATED ACTION PREVIOUSLY THROUGH TWO SEPARATE ORDINANCES IN 1996 AND AGAIN IN 2006 WHICH HAD AT THAT TIME SERVED TO MAKE THE PROPERTIES CONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AND R3 ZONING. WHAT WE HAVE ON THE MAP TODAY REFLECTS THE R3 ZONING BUT A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. AGAIN, THERE HAVE BEEN PRIOR ACTIONS BOTH IN 1996 AND 2006 THAT WOULD HAVE MADE THIS PROPERTY CONSISTENT. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME IS TO DIRECT THAT THE MAP ITSELF GET AMENDED BUT THAT THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL ACTION THROUGH ANY FUTURE ORDINANCES THAT NEEDS TO BE CONTEMPLATED AS PART OF THE -- AND THIS WAS BROUGHT BACK FOR ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD JUST TO ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS SURROUNDING THIS PROPERTY AND WHAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE BUILT THERE IN THE FUTURE.

PARTICULARLY, AS IT RELATES TO SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WHICH EXIST ON THE SITE. SO, I DON'T KNOW IF THE BOARD WANTS TO DISCUSS THIS AT ALL?

>> MR. CLARK, YOU HAVE A QUE QUESTION.

>> >> BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. ARE THERE PEOPLE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE

TO SPEAK FIRST? >> I DON'T KNOW WE HAVE NO PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON SOMETHING, WE CERTAINLY WANT TO HEAR YOU. BUT YOU NEED TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM HERE AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN TELL US WHAT YOU WANT TO HAVE US HEAR. AND OTHERWISE I WOULD APPRECIATE NO CLAPPING, YELLING, SCREAMING, WHATEVER. WE WANT EVERYONE TO FEEL COMFORTABLE BEING ABLE TO SPEAK HERE. NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY THE AUDIENCE. GO AHEAD.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. I TOOK AN OPPORTUNITY AFTER THE LAST MEETING TO VISIT WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY AND PLANNING STAFF. SO I AM A BIT MORE EDUCATED THAN I WAS AT OUR LAST MEETING. I UNDERSTAND THERE IS SIGNIFICANT PRIOR ACTION ON THIS PROPERTY AS KELLY JUST OUTLINED.

AND TO A LARGE EXTENT I THINK THAT PLAYS OUR HAND SO TO SPEAK IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. BUT AS I LOOK AT THIS THERE'S A KEY ASPECT ABOUT THIS PROPERTY I REALLY WANT TO BRING UP FOR THE BOARD'S ATTENTION AND POSSIBLY FUTURE CONSIDERATION AS WE LOOK AT SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTIES. I WONDER IF YOU CAN PUT UP THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE FLOOD PLAIN? I THINK WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SEE IS THE ASKINS PROPERTY -- AND I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT THE ASKINS PROPERTY, JUST BY AN EYEBALL LOOK AT IT, MAYBE TWO-THIRDS OF THAT PROPERTY IS IN FLOOD PLAIN ZONE. I UNDERSTAND BY VIRTUE OF THAT FACT AND THE OTHER PHYSICAL CHARAC CHARACTERISTICS THAT DOES LIMIT WHAT CAN BE BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY AND THERE ARE OTHER REGULATIONS IN TERM OF FIRST FLOOR ELEVATIONS THAT WOULD COME IN TO PLAY. BUT I WOULD SUGGEST FOR MY COLLEAGUES ON THE BOARD AND FOR ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC THAT CARES ABOUT THIS, THIS MATTER OF HOW WE TREAT PROPERTY SUBJECT TO FLOODING IS AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION AND THAT I THINK WE NEED TO BE AS CONSISTENT AS WE CAN ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE. I'LL HIGHLIGHT THE EASTERN MOST PARCEL. HERE IS THE WESTERN MOST PARCEL PART OF

THAT PROPERTY. >> >> BOARD MEMBER: SO MR. CHAIRMAN, AND BOARD MEMBERS, I WANTED TO MAKE THE POINT THAT IF WE WERE DEALING WITH THE CLEAN SLATE I'D LOOK AT THIS PROPERTY DIFFERENTLY THAN THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY WOULD SUGGEST. I THINK THE FLOODING IS A KEY CHARACTERISTIC THAT WE OUGHT TO BE MINDFUL OF IN TERMS OF HOW WE PLAN FOR THESE PROPERTIES IN THE FUTURE. I WOULD JUST ADDS A A FOOTNOTE. THE FLOOD PLAIN DESIGNATION THAT YOU SEE HERE IS BASED ON, I GUESS RAINFALL FLOODING FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. IT DOESN'T REALLY INCLUDE FLOOD SURGE OR SURGEON WATERS THAT MIGHT -- SURGE WATERS THAT MIGHT COME IN OR BE INUNDATED DURING A PERIOD OF A HURRICANE. THAT WOULD BE OVER AND ABOVE WHAT'S THERE.

THESE PROPERTIES ARE PRETTY SEVERELY CONSTRAINED. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE OUGHT TO

[00:10:02]

FOCUS ON THIS ISSUE. I THINK OUR CARDS HAVE BEEN PLAYED HERE FOR THIS PROPERTY, BUT I THINK AS WE LOOK AT THESE IN THE FUTURE, I THINK THE MATTER OF THE FLOOD PLAIN DESIGNATION OUGHT TO BE PERHAPS LOOKED AT DIFFERENTLY FOR OTHER PROPERTIES. AS WE GO FORWARD.

>> AGAIN ON THE NEWEST ONE ON THE BOARD SO I JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. DID I UNDERSTAND

THAT THIS -- IS IT R3? IS THAT WHAT IT CURRENTLY IS? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> >> BOARD MEMBER: AND WHEN I -- AND R3 IS HIGH DENSITY? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> >> BOARD MEMBER: SO WHEN I LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY IT LOOKS LIKE MOST OF ALL THESE

PARCELS ARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES? >> DUPLEXES. >> >> BOARD MEMBER: WHAT IS THAT, THAT IS FIRST AVENUE? SO, THOSE ARE DUPLEXES BUT ON ASKINS, THOSE LOOK LIKE SINGLE FAMILY. THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THEM THAT LOOKS LIKE SINGLE FAMILY AND ALL SOUTH LOOK LIKE SINGLE FAMILY. SO THE REASON IT'S R3 IS A TRANSITION FROM FIRST AVENUE WHERE IT'S DUPLEXES

INTO NOW ALL THESE OTHER SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES? >> THE BASIS FOR BEING R3 AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL I CANNOT SPEAK TO OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT THIS WAS PRECEDING ACTION THAT TOOK PLACE BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO HAVE IT INDICATED AS R3 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. FUNCTIONALLY SOME OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE ZONED AND FLUMED MEDIUM DENSITIES ARE R2 ACTUALLY ACT MORE LIKE A RESORT RENTAL TYPE COMMUNITY.

PARTICULARLY THE FOREST RIDGE COMMUNITY. IN THIS CASE, THAT'S A HISTORIC PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT DEVIATES FROM WHAT WE WOULD SEE UNDER STANDARD PLANNING PRACTICE FOR A PROPERTY WITH THAT ZONING DESIGNATION AND IT CARRIES WITH IT A RESORT RENTAL CAPACITY BECAUSE OF ITS HISTORIC USE IN THAT MANNER. IF YOU LOOK AT IT FROM A MAP PERSPECTIVE THEY DON'T LOOK LIKE IT WOULD ALIGN, THEY'RE ACTING IN THE SAME MANNER THAT A RESORT RENTAL TYPE COMMUNITY WOULD BE.

THEN I WAS WELL HAD SOME -- IT WAS EYE OPENING TO SEE THE FLOOD ZONE MAP ON THESE PARCELS. SO YOU ARE SAYING EVERYTHING HAS ALREADY BEEN PUT IN PLACE IT'S JUST A MATTER OF UPDATING THE

MAP TO SHOW IT IS CORRECT. AND THE FLUM ARE CONSISTENT >> THAT'S CORRECT. I CAN SPEAK TO THE ZONING HOW ZONING WORKS WITHIN THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH AND AS IT RELATES TO FLOOD PLAIN PROPERTIES. SO, LAND USE AND ZONING YOU HAVE RESIDENTIAL AND NET DENSITY WHICH DEFINES FOR YOU THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS THAT A PIECE OF PROPERTY HAN HAVE ON A GIVEN SITE. HOW MANY HOMES CAN YOU FIT ON THE OVERALL PROPERTY. THE CITY IS DEFINED RESIDENTIAL OR NET DENSITY WITHIN ITS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO, WHERE YOU HAVE A VACANT PARCEL OF LAND WE UTILIZE THAT DEFINITION TO DETERMINE HOW MANY UNITS YOU CAN HAVE ON IT. WITHIN THAT DEFINITION IT EXCLUDES FLOOD AREAS FROM BEING WITHIN IT FROM BEING INCLUDED IN YOUR DEFINITION OF THE BUILDABLE LAND AREA TO SUPPORT THOSE UNITS. SO THOSE PROPERTIES FOR PURPOSES OF DEMONSTRATION I'LL TURN THE FLOOD PLAIN LAYER BACK ON.

ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE IT HIGH DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL OR TEN DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE ASSIGNED TO IT, YOU WOULD THINK THEY CAN GET A LOT OF UNITS THERE BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THAT PROPERTY.

WHEN YOU RUN THE FIGURES YOU HAVE TO EXCLUDE THE FLOOD PLAIN ITSELF. WHICH RENDERS TWO OF THEM VOID OF NET DENSITY. THE CITY'S PLAN DOES ACKNOWLEDGE NON-CONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD AND PROVIDES YOU HAVE NO MORE THAN ONE DWELLING UNIT WHERE THAT MAY EXIST. EFFECTIVELY WITH YOUR NET DENSITY AND BUILDABLE LAND AREA DEFINITION APPLIED TO THIS RESTRICTING OUT

[00:15:08]

FLOOD PLAIN YOU CAN ACHIEVE NO MORE THAN ONE UNIT ON EACH OF THESE PROPERTIES. SO YOU WOULDN'T SEE DUPLEX TYPE STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> >> BOARD MEMBER: THE PARSE UNTIL THE WETLANDS, THE ONE TO THE WEST, SO THAT ONE WOULD ONLY

BE ABLE TO HAVE ONE BUILDING? >> ONE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. ONE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT AT THIS TIME COULD BE ALLOWED. THEY'RE FURTHER CONSTRAINED BASED ON THE LIMITATION OF WHERE ANY WETLANDS MAY EXIST AND THE DESIGN COMPONENT OF A BUFFER TOO.

CHAI >> THIS IS NOT ALL WETLANDS THOUGH. EVEN IF WE PUT THE TOPOGRAPHY LAYER ON AND IT'S HIGH AND DRY, LIKE IT'S AT SEVEN ACTUALLY WHEN FOREST RIDGE IS AT TWO FEET ABOVE SEA LEGAL. SO I GUESS MY POINT IS I WOULDN'T BE AS WORRIED ABOUT THE FLOOD PLAIN AS I WOULD THE WETLANDS WHEN MAKING THIS DECISION. THE T TOPOGRAPHY IS SO HIGH IT'S STILL GOING TO BE OKAY. BUT IT'S DEFINITELY OUT OF PLACE WITH THE REST OF THE ZONING.

>> HOW MANY UNITS COULD WE PUT ON THE 1.91 ACRES THERE >> IF YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THEM

AS INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES THE WAY THEY'RE FORMED TODAY. >> >> BOARD MEMBER: THERE'S NO PROHIBITION TO JOINING ALL OF THE PROPERTIES TOGETHER AND BUILDING ONE PROJECT IS THERE? NO. YOU ONLY HAVE WHAT'S OUT THERE TODAY FOR PURPOSES OF EVALUATION OF THEM. BUT YOU

COULD CONSIDER PUTTING THEM TOGETHER. >> >> BOARD MEMBER: SO YOU COULD

DO TOWNHOUSES? >> THAT'S A BUILDING TYPE THAT WOULD BE PER MISSIBLE UNDER R3.

HOWEVER THE DENSITY ASSOCIATED WITH IT WOULD EXCLUDE THE AREA THAT'S WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN.

SO I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RUN THAT FIGURE WITHOUT HAVING AN EXACT COUNT BEHALF THE ACREAGE

REMAINS UNDER THAT PROPERTY. >> >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT JUST UNDER R2 AND 1.9 ACRES -- R2 IS

HOW MANY UNITS >> EIGHT. >> >> BOARD MEMBER: SO ALMOST 16 UNITS COULD POTENTIALLY GO IN THERE WITH LIMITATIONS ON HEIGHT AND SETBACKS?

>> NO. BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO EXCLUDE THE LAND AREA ASSOCIATED WITH THE FLOOD PLAIN. SO I NEED

TO KNOW WHAT THAT FIGURE WOULD BE THEN RUN THE FIGURE >> >> BOARD MEMBER: ONE TIME WE WERE BASED ON THE PORTION OF THE PARCEL BUT I THOUGHT THAT GOAT CHANGED.

>> I WOULD WHISPER PLEASE EXPLAIN NET DENSITY. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ALLOWABLE DENSITY WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT AND YOUR NET DENSITY WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE ABLE TO GET IN TERMS OF UNITS ON THE PROPERTY. AS PART OF OUR DEFINITION FOR NET DENSITY, WE HAVE A DEFINITION IN THE COMPRO LENSIVE PLAN AND IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, FLOOD PLAINS, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS, ALL THAT HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND THE

CALCULATION OF WHAT YOU ACTUALLY GET. >> >> BOARD MEMBER: AT ONE TIME

THAT WAS ALL TAKEN OUT OF THE ACREAGE. >> IT IS.

>> >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT NOW IT'S INCLUDED IN THE ACREAGE >> NO. IT'S EXCLUDED.

>> >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. WE JUST HAVE THIS CONVERSATION WITH A LOCAL ATTORNEY WHO IS REPRESENTING A CLIENT INWIREING NOT ABOUT THIS PROPERTY BUT SOME OTHER PROPERTY. SE HOW MANY UNITS DO YOU THINK I CAN PUT THERE? WHEN I LOOK AT AN AERIAL THERE'S A LAKE THERE OR WHAT LOOKS LIKE A SMALL LAKE. WHEN YOU GO BACK TO YOUR -- THERE'S ONE HERE THAT SAYS LOCATION OF

WETLANDS. >> THE LAKE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT I THINK IS WHAT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER IS SHOWING AS PROBABLE WETLANDS. WE DON'T HAVE A SURVEY BUT THEY'RE GUESSING

THAT'S PROBABLY WETLANDS. >> AT ONE TIME THIS WAS PROBABLY CONTINUATION OF EGAN'S CREEK ALL

[00:20:05]

THE WAY DOWN THE ISLAND. SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE CONSERVATION AREA. THIS AREA THAT IS ALL THIS WATER HERE BE PUT INTO SOME KIND OF A CONSERVATION AREA. YOU ARE

SUGGESTING PUTTING IT R2 >> I AM SUGGESTING THAT THE COMMISSION HAS ALREADY TAKEN ACTION ON THIS PROPERTY AND ALTHOUGH IT ROSE UP AS AN ERROR BECAUSE IT HAD A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO, WE'VE FOUND ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION THAT SUPPORTS THAT ACTION HAD

PREVIOUSLY BEEN TAKEN AND THESE TWO ARE ALIGNED. >> >> BOARD MEMBER: SO MOVE ON

>> YES, SIR, POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE EARLIER. IF WE HAD A CLEAN SLATE I THINK WE MIGHT LOOK AT THIS DIFFERENTLY. BUT BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY OF THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL I THINK WE'RE STUCK WITH THAT. BUT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, I WOULD SUGGEST WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS MORE COMPREHENSIVELY AND MAKE POLICY DECISIONS. BECAUSE WHAT THEY'RE DOING HERE WITH THIS DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE. IN TERMS OF THE FLOODING POTENTIAL. I DID WANT TO JUST MAKE ONE OTHER POINT THOUGH, KELLY, AND YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. BECAUSE OF THE FLOOD PLAIN DESIGNATION THERE IS A FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION REQUIREMENT. SO, ANY BUILDING THAT WOULD OCCUR IN THERE WOULD HAVE TO ELEVATE ABOVE THE FLOOD LEVEL BY PLUS ONE FOOT

>> UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. PLUS TWO FEET UNDER THE FUTURE ORDINANCE

CHAIRMAN: IS THAT WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF THE OCEAN? >> IT'S PRETTY CLOSE. THE HEIGHT LIMIT AT 35 FEET. CHAIRMAN: SO THEY'D BE ABLE TO PUT IN FILL THEN GO UP FROM

THERE? >> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE FILL. UNDER THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES THAT WOULD BE RESTRICTIVE. CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE. ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE ONLY. NOT HEARING ANYONE, WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I

NEED SOMEONE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS. >> WE DON'T NEED A MOTION.

CHAIRMAN: WE DON'T NEED A MOTION? I THOUGHT WE WERE DOING MOTIONS ON EACH ONE OF THESE

>> BECAUSE THIS IS ONE -- IT'S SELF RESOLVED. CHAIRMAN: I ALMOST ASK WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE IT ON HERE. OKAY. MOVING ON. THE NEXT ONE IS 731 SOUTH 6TH STREET.

>> I'LL VERY BRIEFLY GO THROUGH. PREVIOUSLY WHEN THE BOARD LOOKED AT THIS CHANGE IN OCTOBER THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE REAR PORTION OF THE SITE. AND SINCE THAT TIME, WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT THERE IS AN ACTIVE BUSINESS LOCATED ON THE REAR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AT 731 SOUTH SIXTH STREET. THAT PORTION WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED AS INDUSTRIAL LAND USE AND ZONING CONSISTENTLY. SO, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS HERE TO SPEAK TO THAT A BIT. BUT FOR PURPOSES OF THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION AND JUST TO RECAP A LITTLE BIT. THIS IS A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT ROSE UP AS A CONFLICT FOR THE REASON THAT THE LAND USE MAP ITSELF SHOWS A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY ON THE FRONT PORTION OR FRONT HALF OF THE PROPERTY WITH AN INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY ON THE BACK HALF OF THE PROPERTY. THE ENTIRE ZONING DISTRICT ON THE MAP REFLECTS INDUSTRIAL R1. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO MOVE ALL OF IT IN TO A MEDIUM DENSITY AND R2 ZONING DISTRICT. AT OUR MEETING IN OCTOBER IT WAS NOTED AS POTENTIALLY ACT OF BUSINESS OPERATING FROM THERE. ALTHOUGH THE BUSINESS DOES NOT HAVE A VALID LOCAL BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT THROUGH THE CITY AT THIS TIME, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS WORKING TOWARDS GETTING COMPLIANCE WITH THAT. AND CERTAINLY, RIGHT NOW WE'VE NOTED THAT THE FRONT HALF OF THE STRUCTURE IS BEING RENTED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. AND CORRECTION TO REFLECT AN R-TWO ZONING DISTRICT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE THERE. BUT THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD LIKE TO RETAIN THE INDUSTRIAL R-ONE ZONING DISTRICT ON THE REAR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE INDUSTRIAL LAND USE CATEGORY THAT WOULD MATCH IT. THEY'RE WORKING TO SEPARATE THE PROPERTY LEGALLY SO THAT IT IS NOT ONE SINGLE SITE WITH MULTIPLE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES CONTAINED WITHIN IT. AND THEN ALSO TO HAVE A VALIDLY PERMITTED BUSINESS OPERATING FROM THE LOCATION. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS HERE TO SPEAK TO THAT REQUEST AS WELL.

[00:25:06]

CHAIRMAN: SHOULD WE BE WAITING UNTIL SHE GOES THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND NOT TAKE ANY ACTION

TONIGHT? >> I THINK TAKING ACTION AT THIS TIME WOULD BE FINE. AND THE SEPARATION OF THE PROPERTY COULD OCCUR SUBSEQUENT TO IT. CHAIRMAN: SO THEN THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE CHANGED? GO AHEAD AND KEEP THE WESTERN HALF AS INDUSTRIAL AND THE FRONT

HALF AS-- >> THAT IS WHAT THE OWNER WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER.

CHAIRMAN: -- R2 >> IS THAT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING? IS THAT YOUR

RECOMMENDATION AS WELL? I AM A LITTLE CONFUSED >> THE SURROUNDING AREA YOU HAVE ON THAT WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTIES, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP FROM A LARGER PERSPECTIVE, YOU DO HAVE SIMILARLY FLUMED AND ZONED PROPERTIES JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF HICKORY STREET AS WELL AS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE UNOPENED SOUTH 5TH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY. SO IT WOULDN'T BE INCOMPATIBLE TO RETAIN IT AS INDUSTRIAL. I THINK WE CAN CERTAINLY NOTE THAT CHARACTERISTIC OF THAT SURROUNDING AREA IS PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE. AND SO IT'S REALLY UP TO THE BOARD TO DECIDE HOW DO YOU WANT TO TREAT THIS PROPERTY MOVING FORWARD. AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE DO HAVE WHAT WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE AS AN ACTIVE

BUSINESS ON THE REAR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. >> >> BOARD MEMBER: DO KNOW FOR

CERTAIN THIS LOT IS GOING TO BE SUB-DIVIDED? >> IT SHOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM IN

ORDER TO SUB-DIVIDE THAT PROPERTY >> >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT IT

HASN'T BEEN DONE YET >> IT HASN'T. THEY'RE WORKING THROUGH OBTAINING PROPERTY

SURVEYS TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. >> >> BOARD MEMBER: AND THE

PROCESS TO DO THAT >> IT IS A MINOR SUBDIVISION >> >> BOARD MEMBER: SO IT WOULD

BE HANDLED BY STAFF >> YES. >> >> BOARD MEMBER: WHEN DO WE THINK THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. I WOULD EXPECT BY END OF THE YEAR. BUT THEY'RE WORKING THROUGH --

>> >> BOARD MEMBER: WHEN DO WE THINK THE BUSINESS PERMITS WILL BE IN PLACE?

>> ONCE YOU HAVE THAT LOT SEPARATED THEY CAN WORK TO GET THOSE IN PLACE CORRECTLY.

>> >> BOARD MEMBER: I JUST THINK WE OUGHT TO WAIT UNTIL ALL THAT'S DONE PERSONALLY. BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW SOMETHING HAPPENS AND IT DOESN'T GET DONE. I DON'T THINK IT HURTS TO HOLD IT

IN ADVANCE UNTIL ALL THE OTHER COMPONENTS ARE IN PLACE. >> >> BOARD MEMBER: JUST TO ASK THE OBVIOUS QUESTION HERE, IF WE WANT TO ALLOW THE BUSINESS TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE, IS THERE ANYWAY TO DO THAT IF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED TO THE RESIDENTIAL USE THAT'S

RECOMMENDED? >> NOT AT THIS TIME BECAUSE YOU WOULD THEN BE PERMITTING A NON-CONFORMING USE WHICH YOU COULD NOT DO. GIVEN THE FACT THIS DOES NOT HAVE A VALID LOCAL BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT RIGHT NOW, WHEN WE PROCESS THAT IT WE WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE IT'S RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE AND COULD NOT EXIST AS THAT TYPE OF BUSINESS. IT IS A SMALL ENGINE REPAIR COMPANY WHICH WOULD BE FAR MORE SUITABLE TO EXIST IN AN INDUSTRIAL LAND USE ZONING DISTRICT.

>> >> BOARDBOARD MEMBER: OKAY. THAT, IF THEY'RE GOING TO GO TO WORK OF SUB-DIVIDING THEY'RE DOING THAT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING WE'LL ENTERTAIN WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING IN TERMS OF INDUSTRIAL ZONING FOR THAT WESTERN HALF. SO THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN ABOUT WAITING. IF WE'RE INCLINED TO GO ALONG WITH WHAT'S BEING SUGGESTED HERE NOW IN MAKING THE BACK HALF OF IT INDUSTRIAL, OR LEAVING IT THE WAY IT IS, I THINK WE OUGHT TO SIGNAL THAT. OTHERWISE THEY'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL THAT WORK AND COME BACK AND WE'RE GOING SAY NO. PERSONALLY, I'M COMFORTABLE IF THEY CAN SUB-DIVIDE THE PROPERTY WITH GOING WITH THE INDUSTRIAL.

>> BOARD MEMBER: CAN WE PUT A TIMEFRAME ON IT SO IT DOESN'T DRAG ON FOREVER?

>> BOARD MEMBER: KELLY WAS SUGGESTING WE GO THAT WAY. HOW WOULD YOU --

CHAIRMAN: I'LL MAKE A NOTE THAT MS. ROLAND HAS JOINED US. >> I WAS GOING TO SECOND WHAT HE SAID. I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE GOING THROUGH PAYING ALL THE MONEY AND THE STAFF TIME AND EFFORT IF WE WEREN'T REALLY GOING TO REZONE THAT. CHAIRMAN: I THINK WE OUGHT TO GIVE THEM THE PROPERTY TO TAKE CARE OF IT. WE CAN TABLE THIS TO A TIME CERTAIN. SAY

[00:30:02]

DECEMBER. LET ME FIND OUT ONE MORE THING. IS BETTY YORK HERE? I WAS TOLD SHE WANTED TO SPEAK TO THIS. LET ME OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COME UP AND TELL US WHO YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU LIVE

AND MAYBE YOU CAN ANSWER SOME OF THIS QUESTIONS FOR US. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: BETTY YORK.

AND WE LIVE IN CALLAHAN. CHAIRMAN: YOU ARE IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING THE CHANGES?

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: YES WE'VE TALKED TO A SURVEYOR AHE SHOULD HAVE THE SURVEYS READY THE END OF THIS WEEK OR THE FIRST OF NEXT WEEK. CHAIRMAN: SO WOULD YOU BE

ANTICIPATING MAYBE NO LATER THAN THE END OF DECEMBER? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: OH YES.

WITHIN THE NEXT TEN DAYS. CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT. SO, PUTTING THIS ON THE

DECEMBER MEETING, WE COULD DO THAT >> WHAT IS IT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO SEE AT THAT TIME? CHAIRMAN: I'M HEARING EVERYBODY WOULD LIKE TO WAIT AND NOT DO

ANYTHING AT THIS POINT. >> BOARD MEMBER: NO. I WAS SAYING WE SHOULD INDICATE -- IF WE'RE WILLING TO MAKE THE CHANGE THAT MRS. YORK IS REQUESTING I THINK WE SHOULD SIGNAL THAT SO

SHE DOESN'T GO THROUGH WASTED EFFORT. >> BOARD MEMBER: I AGREE, TOO.

I WAS THINKING OF PUTTING A TIMEFRAME ON IT. >> BOARD MEMBER: THAT'S FINE.

CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO. THANK YOU.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN: WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND MR. CLARK DO YOU

WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? >> BOARD MEMBER: I'D MAKE THE MOTION ON THE PROPERTY AT 731 SOUTH 6TH STREET THAT WE CONSIDER THE WESTERN HALF OF THE PROPERTY APPROXIMATELY BASED ON THE NEW PLAT THAT WOULD BE DRIVEN TO REMAINS A INDUSTRIAL ZONING IN THE FRONT HALF BE ZONED TO RESIDENTIAL AS RECOMMENDED. CHAIRMAN: THAT WOULD ALSO

INCLUDE A LAND USE CHANGE ON BOTH OF THOSE? >> NO. THE ONLY CHANGE THAT WOULD BE CONTEMPLATED IS THAT ROUGHLY .23 ACRES OF LAND WOULD BE RESIDENTIALLY ZONED. THAT FRONT PORTION. THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE THAT WOULD BE MOVING FORWARD. THAT THE REST WOULD STAY IN PLACE AS IT PRESENTLY EXISTS. CHAIRMAN: OKAY. IS EVERYONE

CLEAR ON THIS MOTION? DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND.

CHAIRMAN: THAT WAS FROM? THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? OKAY. YOU

WANT TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THE QUESTION PLEASE. >> MEMBER ROLAND

>> YES >> MEMBER BENNETT >> YES

>> MEMBER RSHAFER >> YES >> MEMBER CLARK

>> YES CHAIRMAN: MOTION PASSES. CAN WE NOW CHANGE? OKAY. WHERE AM I AT

IN MY LIST HERE. THAT'S THE LAST ONE IN THIS PACKET? >> YES.

CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE AGENDA AROUND TO HERE. BUT I THINK EVERYONE IS HERE FOR AND THAT'S THE HICKORY STREET PROPERTY. IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT WITH EVERYONE ON THE BOARD? OKAY. AS SOON AS I CAN FIND IT ON HERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> BOARD MEMBER: ACTUALLY PAGE 37. PARDON ME EVERYBODY. WE'RE HEARING THE HICKORY STREET PARK CHANGE. KELLY? THIS IS A REQUESTED ACTION BECAUSE OF THE NOTED CONFLICT THAT EXISTS BETWEEN THE LAND USE AND ZONING MAP, AGAIN. WHERE THE HICKORY STREET PARK PROPERTY TOTALLING ALMOST TEN ACRES OF LAND CONTAINS A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION WITH A CONFLICTING PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL OR PI1 ZONING DISTRICT. THIS IS SCHOOL BOARD

[00:35:08]

OWNED PROPERTY BUT IT IS CITY MAINTAINED AS A PUBLIC PARK AS OVERFLOW BALL FIELDS AND PRACTICE FIELDS. AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT AS IT IS SCHOOL BOARD OWNED THAT IT SHOULD REFLECT THE SAME AS THE ZONING DISTRICT AND BE FLUMED PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL. A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON THIS PROPERTY. AS I PROMISED AND SOME OF THE RATIONALE FOR DELAYING CONSIDERATION OF THIS REQUEST UNTIL THE MEETING HERE TONIGHT. THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE NASSAU COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD IN 1969 FOR APPROXIMATELY $10. AND THEN IN 2001 A SERIES OF ACTIONS TOOK PLACE INCLUDING A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH NASSAU COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO LEASE THE PROPERTY FOR A DOLLAR A YEAR FOR USE AS BALL FIELDS AND OVERFLOW PRACTICE SPACE. THERE WERE TWO ACTIONS THAT ARE PERTINENT HERE. THE FIRST ACTION OCCURRED IN FEBRUARY OF 2001 WITH THE SECOND ACTION MODIFYING THE TERMS OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT FROM 30 YEARS TO ONLY 25 YEARS. AND THEN IN APRIL OF 2001, THE CITY ENTERED INTO AN INNER-LOCAL AGREEMENT WITH NASSAU COUNTY TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THAT LAND AREA WE NOW SEE AS HICKORY STREET PARK FOR THE USE AS I PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED UNDER THE TERMS OF THAT INNER-LOCAL AGREEMENT NASSAU COUNTY PAID $100,000 FOR DEVELOPMENT, GRASSING, FENCING, IRRIGATION, THE PUMP AND WELL AND ISSUED A CHECK TO THE CITY FOR THOSE SERVICES THAT HAD BEEN COMPLETED TO MAKE THAT PROPERTY SUITABLE FOR PRACTICE FIELDS. THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER $30,000 IN-KIND SERVICES THAT WERE PROVIDED TO THE CITY AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY. THE CITY HAS CONTINUED TO MAINTAIN IT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE INNER-LOCAL AGREEMENT SINCE THAT PERIOD OF TIME AND HAS RECEIVED NUMEROUS VOLUNTEER HOURS AND AN EFFORT TO MAINTAIN IT BUT ALSO THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SITE INITIALLY. AND THAT AT THIS TIME WE'RE NOT AWARE OF THE SCHOOL BOARD WISHING TO CHANGE AT ALL THE TERMS OF THAT LEASE AGREEMENT.

BUT IT WOULD BE EXPECTED TO END MARCH 20, 2026. THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS ISSUED A STATEMENT THAT I'VE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD MEMBERS. I'VE ALWAYS MADE IT AVAILABLE ON THE COUNTER OVER HERE AND CAN CERTAINLY MAKE AVAILABLE ADDITIONAL COPIES IF NEEDED THAT MS. BURNS HAS REQUESTED THAT THE CITY CHANGE THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R-ONE TO MATCH THE UNDERLINING ZONING DISTRICT INSTEAD OF WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE ACTION OF THE LAND USE CHANGED TO PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL. THEY INDICATE THEY HAVE NO PLANS TO SELL HICKORY STREET AND THEY'RE HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE IT AS PUBLIC SPACE FOR CHILDREN AND THE COMMUNITY. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE IN TERMS OF THE EXTENT OF THEIR STATEMENT AT THIS TIME. AGAIN, STAFF MAINTAINS THE POSITION THAT AS A SCHOOL BOARD OWNED PIECE OF PROPERTY, THE PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL LAND USE IS THE CORRECT CATEGORY TO HAVE ASSIGNED TO IT TO MATCH THAT ZONING DISTRICT.

CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? IF NO QUESTIONS, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE? PLEASE COME UP HERE AND

TELL US WHO YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU LIVE. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING.

I'M ROBIN LENTZ. I LIVE AT 802 PARKVIEW PLACE EAST. MY PROPERTY IS NOT THE EXACT AFFECTED PROPERTY BUT I DO LIVE SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET FROM THE PARK. FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO MR. ROLAND FOR SPEAKING UP AND MENTIONING THAT THE CITY SHOULD POSSIBLY CONSIDER TO PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY. BECAUSE I WAS AT HOME SAYING YES WE SHOULD. AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE SCHOOL BOARD FOR THE GENEROUS LEASE THEY PROVIDE IN THIS AMAZING PARK THAT WE ALL HAVE THE BENEFIT OF USING. BUT IT IS MY RECOMMENDATION AND AS I'VE SPOKEN TO A LOT OF MY NEIGHBORS AND MY PARENTS IN THE COMMUNITY, IT IS THEIR WISH TOO AND I THINK THEY'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON IT. BUT I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU HOW OFTEN THE COMMUNITY USES IT.

BECAUSE MY HOUSE SITS AT THE CORNER OF HICKORY AND SE TRONA, I DRIVE PAST THIS PARK EVERY SINGLE DAY. I TURN RIGHT FROM 14TH TO HICKORY AND DRIVE PAST ITER DAY. THERE'S NOT A SINGLE DAY THAT GOES BY EVEN SOMETIMES WHEN IT'S POURING DOWN RAIN THAT THE COMMUNITY IS NOT USING IT.

I EVEN CONFIRMED WITH THE ATHLETIC DIRECTOR AT FERNANDINA BEACH HIGH SCHOOL BECAUSE I SEE THE TEAMS OUT THERE AND HAVING WORKED AT THE MIDDLE SCHOOL FOR SO LONG, IT IS THE PRACTICE HOME TO BOTH BOYS AND GIRL'S SOCCER TEAMS AT THE MIDDLE SCHOOL AND THE HIGH SCHOOL. IT'S HOME TO

[00:40:04]

BABE RUTH, AMELIA ISLAND SOCCER PRACTICE, POP WARNER FOOTBALL, SPRING FOOTBALL FROM FERNANDINA BEACH HIGH SCHOOL IS HOSTED THERE AND OUR NEWLY AND AMAZING LACROSSE PROGRAM IS HOUSED THERE AS WELL. SO, IT IS USED EVERY DAY BY THE COMMUNITY. IT IS PUBLIC USE. AND THAT SHOULD BE ITS FUTURE LAND USE MAP USE AS WELL TO MATCH THAT. ALSO, I THINK BY MAKING THE TWO BE PUBLIC USE, WE ARE ALSO CONSERVING THIS TEN ACRE PARCEL OF PROPERTY FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS FOR KIDS TO USE AND THE COMMUNITY. SO I JUST WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSION TO MAKE THE LAND USE MAP MATCH PUBLIC USE. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: MARGARET KIRKLAND. 1377 PLANTATION POINT DRIVE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AMELIA TREE CONSERVANCY. WE SUPPORT MS. LENTZ' STATEMENT AND RECOMMENDATION WHICH IS IN SUPPORT OF KELLY'S

RECOMMENDATION HERE. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I'M RED ANGUS AT 822 PARKVIEW PLACE EAST. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY. I AGREE WITH WHAT'S BEEN SAID BEFORE, THAT THE PARK IS USED EXTENSIVELY BY THE COMMUNITY, BOTH STUDENTS, CHILDREN'S GAMES AND ADULT GAMES AS WELL, ADULT EXERCISE AND ACTIVITIES AS WELL.

AND SO I DO ASK YOU TO MAKE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP MATCH THE CURRENT ZONING OF PUBLIC AND INDUSTRIAL. IT'S BEEN A PARK FOR 20 YEARS. SO I THINK THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SHOULD MATCH THAT TO CONTINUE WITH THAT. AND IT IS OPEN SPACE. IT'S PARK SPACE. AND THAT IS SO VALUABLE TO THE CITY. IT'S LIMITED RESOURCES, BECOMING MUCH MORE LIMITED, SO WHILE WE HAVE THIS, I ASK THAT YOU MAKE SURE THAT IT IS SECURED FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY NAME IS CARL BA SCARIAN. I LIVE AT 95048. I AM ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ISLAND. I AM THE HEAD COACH OF THE LACROSSE PROGRAM AND AT LEAST HALF OR MAYBE MORE OF OUR CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES LIVE IN THE CITY. ACTUALLY HICKORY STREET IS CRUCIAL. LIKE THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID, SPACE FOR PARKS AND RECREATION AND BALL FIELDS IN PARTICULAR IS AN ACUTE NECESSITY. THERE'S NOT MUCH REALLY TO USE RIGHT NOW. BUT WE DO UTILIZE IT ON A WEEKLY BASIS. WE'RE THERE AT LEAST EVERY SATURDAY DURING THE YEAR. AND DURING THE SEASON WHICH IS THE SPRING WE'RE THERE THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK. SO IT'S HEAVILY UTILIZED. WE LOVE THE SPACE. IT PROVIDES JUST ENOUGH ROOM FOR U. AND WE'RE A GROWING PROGRAM AND I THINK WITHOUT THIS FIELD WE PROBABLY WOULD DIE. WE WOULD HAVE NOWHERE TO GO. SO I JUST WANT YOU TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING. BOARD? >> BOARD MEMBER: WHY WOULD THE SCHOOL BOARD WANT TO HAVE THIS REZONED? R1? CHAIRMAN: OBVIOUSLY TO SELL IT TO A DEVELOPER.

>> BOARD MEMBER: WELL THAT WOULD BE MY THOUGHT AS WELL HOW CAN WE GO BACK AND DELICATELY ADDRESS THIS WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD, YOU KNOW, THAT OUR PREFERENCE IS THIS BE KEPT AS THE PUBLIC -- WHAT DO YOU CALL THIS. PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL

ZONING AND LAND USE AS OPPOSED TO R1? >> THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE ASKING.

CHAIRMAN: ANYONE WANT TO-- >> HOW DO WE DO THAT? OKAY, S SO -- SO THE SCHOOL BOARD -- NO. THE SCHOOL BOARD, THE UNDERLYING LAND USE IS RESIDENTIAL. R-TWO.

>> R-ONE. >> R-ONE. THE SCHOOL BOARD IS REQUESTING THAT THE ZONING BE

[00:45:03]

CHANGED FROM PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL TO R1 TO MATCH THE LAND USE. THEIR REASON IS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE PROPERTY -- THEY HAVE NO PLANS CURRENTLY TO SELL IT BUT THEY WANT TO KEEP IT MARKETABLE FOR SALE IN THE FUTURE IF THEY HAVE TO. I ATTENDED ON MONDAY A -- WE HAVE A SCHOOL GROWTH COMMITTEE WHERE KELLY IS ON THE COMMITTEE, I'M ON THE COMMITTEE, DR. BYRNES, THE SUPERINTENDENT, THERE'S A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALLAHAN, HILLIARD AND THEN A BUNCH OF SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEES AND MANAGERS AND FACILITIES AND TRANS BURPING.

AND THE -- TRANSPORTATION. THE PURPOSE OF THAT COMMITTEE IS TO LOOK AT SCHOOL CAPACITY. IT IS A REQUIREMENT IN FLORIDA LAW BEFORE THERE'S RESIDENTIAL BUILT THE SCHOOL SYSTEM HAS TO GET NOTICE ADD AND ALL THAT. SEW WHOA ARE PLANNING FOR -- THE SCHOOLS ARE MORE OR LESS OVER CAPACITY OR AT CAPACITY. SO THE WEST SIDE OF THE COUNTY IS MAYBE ONE OR TWO SCHOOLS HAS CAPACITY LEFT BECAUSE OF THE GROWTH MOSTLY IN YULE IS AFFECTING ALL THE SCHOOLS. SO, WHEN WE MET, THIS WAS ACTUALLY ON THE AGENDA TO BRING UP KNOWING THAT SOMEBODY FROM FERNANDINA WOULD BE THERE. SO, THEY BROUGHT IT UP AND THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID. THEY HAVE NO CURRENT REASON OR PLANS TO SELL IT BUT THEY WOULD LIKE IT TO STAY RESIDENTIAL TO HAVE THAT OPTION. BUT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL AND WHY THAT IS.

SO, THIS ACTION, ANY ACTION TAKEN TONIGHT BY THIS BOARD AND EVENTUAL ACTION BY THE CITY

>> COMMISSIONER: IS NOT GUY -- THE CITY COMMISSION IS NOT GOING TO BE A SURPRISE. SO, WE'RE NOT DOING THIS -- AND LAST MONTH MR. BUNCH, JEFFREY BUNCH WHO IS THE FACILITIES MANAGER FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HE WAS HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST IT AND TO PROMOTE THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING.

CHAIRMAN: MR. ROLAND >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND THE MAP FROM RESIDENTIAL TO PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL FOR THE LAND THAT MATCH THE PUBLIC

AND INSTITUTIONAL ZONING. >> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND. CHAIRMAN: MR. CLARK SECONDED THAT? OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD? QUESTIONS?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR TAMMI. SO, YESTERDAY AT THE PARK MEETING

THEY PUT THE PROPOSAL UP WHERE THEY'RE DOING THIS WORK. >> NO. THAT'S PECK. RIGHT IN

FRONT OF THE PECK CENTER. >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT IT'S THE SAME GENERAL AREA. I JUST

WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WASN'T THIS PROPERTY. >> IT'S NOT.

CHAIRMAN: ANYTHING FURTHER? YOU WANT TO CALL THE QUESTION PLEASE?

>> MEYES >> YES >> YES. YES.

CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I THOUGHT IF ANYONE WANTS TO LEAVE YOU CAN DO THAT NOW FOR THIS ISSUE. SO, WE'LL JUST TAKE A MINUTE OR TWO TO CLEAR THE ROOM. THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING. MS. CLARK THANK YOU FOR COMING.

OR YORK. WHY DID I SAY CLARK? AFRAID TO MOVE THIS THING

>> 510 SA TRONA. >> BOARD MEMBER: WE HAVEN'T DONE 522.

CHAIRMAN: WE'LL GET BACK ON TRACK. I GUESS PAGE 20. 522 SETRONA DRIVE. IS THAT CORRECT

WITH EVERYONE? >> I'LL GET US STARTED. AS A RECAP, I KNOW WE DISCUSSED THIS AT LENGTH. THIS PROPERTY AND THE ADJOINING PROPERTY 510 SETRONA AVE AT OUR MEETING IN OCTOBER. TO RECAP 522 SETRONA DRIVE IS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME BUILT IN 1955 ON APPROXIMATELY

[00:50:03]

1.13 TOTAL ACRES OF LAND. IT DOES HAVE SEVERAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON THAT SAME PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND THERE'S ACTION TO CHANGE BOTH THE LAND USE MAP AND THE ZONING MAP THAT ARE CONSIDERED UNDER THIS PROPERTY. SO THE FIRST ACTION IS TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP FOR .23 ACRES OF LAND FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO CONSERVATION. AND THE SUBSEQUENT ACTION TO THAT IS ALSO TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO .47 ACRES OF LAND FROM R-ONE TO CONSERVATION. AND THE BASIS FOR THAT TOTAL ACREAGE OF LAND AND THE CHANGE AS WE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING WAS NOT TO UTILIZE WHAT PREVIOUSLY WAS REQUESTED OF THE WETLAND BOUNDARY BUT TO LOOK AT THE TOPOGRAPHY AND LAND AREA A LITTLE MORE CLOSELY. AND SO IN THE STAFF REPORT PROVIDED, WHAT I DID IS I REALLY ZOOMED IN AND LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY. I LOOKED AT THE HABITAT, THE VEGETATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE AERIALS THAT YOU CAN REVIEW ON IT. AND THEN I LOOKED AT THE TOPOGRAPHY. IN THE CONTEXT OF WHERE IT LIES, WHERE THE PROPERTY DEVELOPED AREA OF THE PROPERTY EXISTS TODAY. AGAINST WHERE THE WETLANDS, THE SOIL BOUNDARY, AND TYPES CHANGE AND THE FLOOD PLAIN ITSELF. AND AS I WAS LOOKING AT IT VERY CLOSELY I FOUND THE FIVE FOOT CONTOUR LINE PROVIDED A REALLY GOOD POINT TO CONSIDER THAT DEFINING FACTOR FOR WHERE TO PLACE CONSERVATION AS A LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGE ON THE SITE. AT NO POINT IS IT ANY LESS THAN 25 FEET FROM ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES THAT ARE ON THAT PROPERTY. BUT THEN IT CERTAINLY STARTS TO INCORPORATE THE MORE SENSITIVE LAND AREAS THAT CONTINUE TO GET LOWER IN ELEVATION DOWN TO THE CREEK LINES TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. SO THE RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME IS FOR THOSE ACREAGES THAT ARE DESCRIBED ON THE POWER POINT PRESENTATION BUT ALSO WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT TO MODIFY BOTH THE LAND USE AND ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE LINE AT WHICH THE FIVE FOOT CONTOUR EXISTS. CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. ANYONE

HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ONE? MR. CLARK. >> BOARD MEMBER: JUST AN OBSERVATION. I REMEMBER OUR DISCUSSION FROM THE LAST MEETING AND I THINK KELLY'S DONE A GOOD THOUGHTFUL JOB ABOUT WHERE YOU DRAW THIS LINE. I WOULD JUST OBSERVE THAT IF WE AGREE WITH THIS RATIONALE, IT REALLY APPLIES TO THE OTHERS TO DETERMINE THE PROPERTIES IF I

UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC WAS SIMILAR >> THE FIVE FOOT CONTOUR WAS ALSO SOUND TO UTILIZE ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTY, TOO. AND ALSO WHEN YOU -- WE GO INTO THAT MORE DETAIL HERE. ON THAT PIECE IT SHOWS THAT YOU ARE NO CLOSER THAN 25 FEET TO AN IMPROVEMENT ON THAT PROPERTY AND YOU ARE ALSO WITHIN 25 FEET. SO, YOUR BUFFER RANGE IS ACHIEVED BY THE PLACEMENT OF CONSERVATION ON THAT ADJOINING PROPERTY. BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WE TAKE ACTION INDEPENDENTLY. IT JUST HAPPENED TO BE THAT THAT FIVE FOOT CONTOUR WORKED REALLY WELL FOR BOTH.

>> BOARD MEMBER: MR. CHAIRMAN I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION UNLESS THERE'S MORE DISCUSSION.

CHAIRMAN: DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? I WANT TO GO TO THE PUBLIC TOO. THIS ONE IS TO PUT EVERYTHING

UNDER CONSERVATION LAND USE AND ZONING WHICH IS-- >> NOT EVERYTHING, JUST THE AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN HIGHLIGHTED. BUT IT IS A CHANGE THAT AFFECTS -- IT'S ADDING CONSERVATION TO BOTH LAND USE AND ZONING, IN THIS CASE. CHAIRMAN: NOT FOR THE WHOLE PARCEL? BECAUSE THE PROPOSED LAND USE AND ZONING SAID AMEND IT ALL TO CONSERVATION AND ZONING MAP TO CONSERVATION. I ASSUMED THAT WAS FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY

>> JUST THE ACREAGE DESCRIBED. THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. SO, FOR 522 SETRONA .23 ACRES OF LAND WOULD CHANGE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO CONSERVATION LAND USE.

CHAIRMAN: THIS ISN'T THE ONE THE CITY WAS GOING TO PURCHASE WAS IT?

>> NO. WE HANDLED IT THE LAST MEETING AND THE ENTIRETY WOULD GO INTO CONSERVATION.

CHAIRMAN: OKAY. LET ME OPEN TO PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK ON IN FROM THE PUBLIC? ALL RIGHT SEEING NONE WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BOARD MEMBERS? MR. CLARK YOU

HAVE A LIGHT ON. >> BOARD MEMBER: I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE A MOTION IF YOU

[00:55:03]

ARE READY FOR THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN. CHAIRMAN: IT'S ALL ON YOU.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I MOVE FOR THE PROPERTY 522 SETRONA DRIVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO I A MEND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR .23 ACRES OF LAND FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO CONSERVATION AND AMEND THE .7 ACRES OF LAND FROM R1 TO CONSERVATION.

>> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND. CHAIRMAN: I HAVE TWO SECONDS. I'LL CHOOSE ONE.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL GIVE IT UP. >> BOARD MEMBER: NO IT'S FINE RECOGNIZED TO DO THAT. YOU HAVE BEEN SCOLDED. DOES ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, YOU WANT TO CALL THE VOTE?

>> MEMBER SHAFER >> YES >> MEMBER BENNETT

>> YES >> MEMBER CLARK >> YES

>> MEMBER MIN SHOE >> YES >> MEMBER ROLAND

>> YES. CHAIRMAN: THANKS EVERYBODY. NEXT ITEM IS 510 SETRONA

REVISED. >> NOW ON 510 SETRONA YOU HAD A PORTION OF THE DEVELOPED PROPERTY WITH A POOL AND PART OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, THAT HOME THAT EXISTS THERE TODAY, WHICH WAS UNDER A LAND USE CATEGORY OF CONSERVATION AS DEVELOPED. SO THE BOARD'S DIRECTION WAS TO, AGAIN, LOOK AT CHARACTERISTICS MAKE SENSE TO ACTUALLY DEFINE CONSERVATION VERSUS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. AND IN THAT WE HAVE SEPARATED OUT THAT .40 ACRES OF LAND CURRENTLY CONSERVATION SHOULD GO TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THAT THAT AREA GOES OUT TO THE FIVE FOOT CONTOUR ELEVATION LINE. WHICH, LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE MORE OF A ZOOM IN, IS APPROXIMATELY -- IF YOU LOOK AT THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN, YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE TURQUOISE LINE HERE. BETWEEN THAT TURQUOISE LINE AND WHAT IS LABELED AS A POTENTIAL WETLAND LINE WITHOUT BENEFIT OF HAVING A SURVEY DELINEATION OF THAT LINE, IT'S AN APPROXIMATE, BUT IT IS ROUGHLY 25.44 FEET FROM THAT LINE. AND THEN, IF WE LOOK AT THE SAME TURQUOISE CONTOUR ON THE PHOTO TO THE LOWER RIGHT CORNER, UP TO WHERE THE APPROXIMATE EDGE OF THE POOL DECKING EXISTS FOR THE PROPERTY, IT'S ROUGHLY 25.34 FEET. AGAIN, THE FIVE ELEVATIONS IS A REALLY GOOD POINT OF DISTINCTION BY WHICH YOU WOULD APPLY CONSERVATION VERSUS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. CERTAINLY GIVING THAT PROPERTY OWNER OF THE BENEFIT OF THE UP LAND ACREAGE THAT EXISTS BUT PROTECTING THAT LOW LYING AREA. CHAIRMAN: BOARD MEMBERS?

QUESTIONS FOR KELLY? >> BOARD MEMBER: SO THE POOL IS GOING IN THE CONSERVATION?

>> IT'S SUGGESTED IT GO TO RESIDENTIAL. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY.

>> HERE IS A LITTLE BETTER GRAPHIC AREA THAT WOULD DEPICT THAT.

>> SO IT'S TAKING ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY, THE POOL DECK, THE POOL, THE PORTION OF THE HOUSE THAT'S CURRENTLY SITTING IN CONSERVATION AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO MAKE IT RESIDENTIAL. AS KELLY WAS REQUESTED OF KELLY AT THE LAST MEETING TO USE SOME SENSE CAL LINE TO DECIDE WHERE CONSERVATION BEGINS AND ENDS INSTEAD OF A STRAIGHT LINE TO LOOK AT THE CONTOUR AND THE ELEVATIONS THERE. SO, SHE'S FOLLOWING THE FIVE FOOT CONTOUR LINE. THE SAME EXACT CONTOUR AT FIVE FEET AS THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, 522. CHAIRMAN: I WANT TO SPEAK MORE ON THIS BUT I'LL DO THAT LATER.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING RIGHT NOW? ALL RIGHT. LET ME OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DOES ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS PROPERTY? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I HAVE -- THE ONE THING THAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT THIS PROPERTY IS THAT WE HAVE ALMOST LIKE TWO WRONGS AND NOW WE'RE GOING TRY TO MAKE IT ALL RIGHT. I'M AGAINST MOVING THE POOL INTO A RESIDENTIAL AREA. I WOULD THINK THE HOUSE CONCERNS ME BECAUSE A PORTION OF THE HOUSE IS IN CONSERVATION. SO MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT MAYBE MOVE THAT LINE 20 FEET BACK. AND PART OF THE REASON I SAY THAT, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY HERE, AND YOU LOOK AT THE SIZE OF IT, IT

[01:00:05]

COULD AND HAS POTENTIAL TO BE SUB-DIVIDED INTO MORE LOTS. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, I AM AGAINST MOVING THE CONSERVATION ALL THE WAY BACK BECAUSE YOU'RE MAKING THAT MORE AVAILABLE TO DO THAT.

SO, BY SIMPLY MOVING THAT LINE BACK 20 FEET OFF THE HOUSE, THAT ESSENTIALLY MAKES FOR A REGULAR BACKYARD FOR MOST HOUSES IN FERNANDINA BEACH WHICH IS USUALLY 20 FEET FROM THE BACK --

IS THAT CORRECT? 10, 15, 20 >> FROM A PROPERTY LINE. CHAIRMAN: THE POOL'S IN THE GROUND. SO THE POOL REALLY HAS NO IMPACT LEAVING IT THE WAY IT IS. SO MY CONCERN IS DOWN THE ROAD, HIGHER DENSITY, MORE LOTS BEING BUILT. IN FACT CONSERVATION 20 FEET BACK FROM WHERE THE LAND IS TODAY WOULD TAKE CARE OF THE HOUSE AND THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION. SO I WOULD NOT BE FOR THE PROPOSAL. MR. CLARK? HOLD ON ONE MINUTE I HAVE KELLY'S LIGHT ON.

>> I JUST REALLY WANTED TO BRIEFLY SPEAK TO THE CONCERN ABOUT FUTURE SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY. WITHIN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R1 ZONING DISTRICT YOU HAVE A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IN ADDITION TO DENSITY THAT WE CONTEMPLATE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL LOT. THE MINIMUM IN THAT AREA IS AT LEAST 75 FEET. SO, SUBDIVISION WOULD NOT BE FEASIBLE IN THIS CASE. TWO REASONS REALLY BUT ONE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THAT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH BUT TWO THE ACCESS PURPOSE. YOU WOULD HAVE TO THEN DIVIDE THIS NARROW PORTION WHICH ADJOINS SETRONA FURTHER. SO IN THE FUTURE UNDER LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R-ONE ZONING DISTRICT SUBDIVISION OF THIS PROPERTY IS NOT POSSIBLE. CHAIRMAN: WHAT'S THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE?

>> 10,890 SQUARE FEET OF LAND AREA IS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A SINGLE DWELLING UNIT ON THIS PROPERTY. I BELIEVE THE RESULTING LAND AREA IS 1.77 IN TOTAL.

CHAIRMAN: I SEE THREE ADDITIONAL LOTS GOING IN THERE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DISTANCE IS BETWEEN THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE IS, BUT JUST LOOKING AT THE 60 FOOT -- IT'S NOT UP THERE. YOU GOT IT BACKWARDS. SO IT SEEMS TO ME GO DOWN TO 60 FOOT LOT HAVE A NICE LITTLE CUL-DE-SAC AND CUT OUT THREE. AND PROBABLY WITH THE SIZES HERE, I COULD CERTAINLY GET MY 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. ALTHOUGH SOME OF IT MAY BE IN THE WATER OR CONSERVATION AREA OR SOMETHING. WE'VE SEEN SOME OF THESE OTHER LOTS UP ON -- NORTH OF ATKINS IN THAT LAST MEETING. WE HAD LOTS THERE THAT CERTAINLY HAD WETLANDS IN THE WEST END OF THEM. SO, ANY CASE,

THAT'S MY THOUGHT. AND I HAVE MORE. MR. CLARK? >> BOARD MEMBER: KELLY, COULD YOU HELP CLARIFY THAT LAST POINT THAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF CAPABILITY

>> I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO MORE INTERACTIVE MODE TO BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THE CONSTRAINT ASSOCIATED WITH IT. CONTEMPLATING THIS WOULD REMAIN LOW DENSE NIGH RESIDENTIAL AND R1 INTO THE FUTURE AND NOT BE UP ZONED TO ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR IT TO HAVE EITHER A DIFFERENT DWELLING TYPE, A STRUCTURE TYPE, OR FOR ADDITIONAL DENSITY, TO 510 AT ITS WIDEST POINT -- I THINK THIS IS GOING TO HELP PAINT THE PICTURE WHY YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SUB-DIVIDE IT. HOLD ON. AT ITS WIDEST POINT IS 197 FEET IN WIDTH. BUT THAT IS AT ITS WIDEST POINT. AND THIS IS APPROXIMATE. IT NARROWS CONSIDERABLY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE LOT SUCH THAT YOU STILL HAVE TO ACHIEVE THAT MINIMUM OF 75 FEET LOT WIDTH ON THE SITE IN ORDER TO EVEN CONTEMPLATE SUBDIVISION AND CONSIDERATION OF THAT DENSITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY. CHAIRMAN: WE'VE MADE PROVISIONS

[01:05:03]

FOR CUL-DE-SAC PROPERTIES THAT ARE GOING TO BE MAYBE 29 FEET WIDE AND GO BACK 100 FEET. WE DON'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT EVERY LOT HAD TO BE 75 FEET WIDE. THAT'S MY POINT.

>> YOU DO HAVE A REQUIREMENT IN PLACE FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND TO MEET THAT MINIMUM.

CHAIRMAN: SO HOW DO WE -- HOW DO WE DEAL WITH CUL-DE-SACS? BECAUSE THE PROPERTY THAT'S

USUALLY ON THE CUL-DE-SAC IS NOT 75 FEET WIDE. >> AT ITS NARROWEST POINT IT MAY NOT BE BUT AS IT EXTENDS OUTWARDLY YOU TAKE AN AVERAGE OF -- LET'S SAY IT IS A TYPICAL IRREGULAR LOT, A PIE SHAPE LOT, AT THE NARROWEST POINT EXISTS WE WOULD DO AN AVERAGE OF THREE POINTS ON THAT PROPERTY TO DETERMINE THAT IT'S STILL MEETING THE 75 FOOT LOT WIDTH.

CHAIRMAN: THAT'S MY POINT. IF YOU GO TO THE TWO LINES THAT ARE PARALLEL BEFORE YOU GET TO THE WIDEST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY ON THE EAST, AT THAT POINT I COULD PROBABLY PUT AT LEAST

THREE HOMES IN THERE. >> NOT MEETING THAT DENSITY. CHAIRMAN: YOU GOT 1.91 ACRES

>> BUT YOU WOULD HAVE THE LESS THE ACREAGE ASSOCIATED WITH CONSERVATION, FLOOD PLAINS OR WETLANDS. SO IT'S THAT POINT -- IT'S REDUCED ONCE YOU START REMOVING THAT.

CHAIRMAN: WHY WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED BY JUST MOVING THE LINE BACK 20 FEET FROM THE HOUSE AND BE DONE WITH IT BECAUSE THE LINE IS ALREADY THERE AND ACTUALLY IS UP TO THE PORTION OF THE HOUSE?

MR. CLARK? >> BOARD MEMBER: I JUST -- CHAIRMAN: I GOT SOME OTHER

LIGHTS ON TOO. >> BOARD MEMBER: LET'S TAKE KELLY'S STATEMENT AS A GIVEN, THAT THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY IS PRETTY LIMITED IN THE WAY SHE'S DESCRIBED. BUT, BEYOND THAT, I'M CONCERNED IF WE START APPLYING DIFFERENT CRITERIA TO EACH LOT. SO WE JUST TALKED ABOUT -- AND KELLY TALKED ABOUT HER RATIONALE. WHEN SHE WAS ASKED TO PUT THAT TOGETHER AT THE LAST MEETING AND SHE PICKED A FIVE FOOT CONTOUR. I'M NOT SAYING IT AS ELOQUENTLY AS SHE DID, BUT BASICALLY THE SAME KIND OF STRATEGY AND THOUGHT PROCESS WAS APPLIED TO 510 AND 522 SETRONA. AND I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL NOT TO LOOK AT EVERY PROPERTY AND TREAT IT AS THOUGH IT'S A FREE STANDING THING. I THINK WE'VE GOT TO HAVE A CONSISTENT POLICY.

SO, IF WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT FOR THIS PROPERTY, THEN I THINK WE SHOULD GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE OTHER ONE. I AM COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT IS RECOMMENDED HERE AND THE APPROACH THAT WAS USED.

I WOULD ASK, IF THERE ARE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THIS AREA THAT COULD BE SIMILARLY REZONED OR REFLUMED, IF YOU WILL, THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD DO THAT. BUT FOR THESE TWO, I THINK THIS IS -- THIS IS A REASONABLE APPROACH. AS I SAID, IT'S PREDICATED ON THE FACT BASED ON THE QUESTIONS YOU RAISED, MR. CHAIRMAN, WHICH I THINK WERE APPROPRIATE, WE DON'T WANT TO NECESSARILY ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT IN HERE. BUT KELLY SEEMS TO BELIEVE THAT THERE REALLY ISN'T MUCH ABILITY TO DEVELOP THE LOTS IN THERE. SO, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN FURTHER SHARPEN THAT POINT, BUT MY BASIC POINT, MR. CHAIRMAN, IS I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT ESTABLISHING DIFFERENT CRITERIA FOR EACH LOT. I THINK WE'VE GOT TO TREAT THEM CONSISTENTLY.

CHAIRMAN: MR. MINSHEW >> I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. KELLY, WHAT IS THE WIDTH UP AT

SETRONA OF THE LOT? CHAIRMAN: 61.28 FEET. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. SO, YOU WOULD HAVE TO PUT IN -- LET ME ASK THE QUESTION THIS WAY. COULD YOU DO A PUD ON THIS?

>> NO YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF FIVE ACRES. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO YOU CAN'T DO A PUD. SO, YOU REALLY ARE LIMITED. IF YOU -- AND THE MINIMUM WIDTH FOR A CUL-DE-SAC

PRIVATE ROAD IS WHAT, 25, 30? >> YES FOR TWO-WAY. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO YOU'RE REALLY -- YOU CONTINUE TO LIMIT THIS PROPERTY TO WHAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY PUT ON IT.

CHAIRMAN: WELL IF YOU LOOK AT-- >> THE ONLY OTHER WAY TO EVALUATE THIS WOULD BE TO LOOK AT IN THE EVENT OF LARGE SCALE REDEVELOPMENT OCCURRING, I MEAN, THE COMBINATION OF LOTS AND THEN WHAT WOULD BE FEASIBLE UNDER THAT SCENARIO. SO, IF WE CONSIDERED IT WITH NOTHING ON IT AT ALL, WOULD YOU LOOK AT IT DIFFERENTLY? AND THEN, OF COURSE, YOU WOULD ALWAYS HAVE THAT ASSOCIATED AFFECT OF IF YOU COMBINE LOTS WITH SOME OF THE SURROUNDING AREA AND THE

DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL THAT WOULD EXIST. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO THEN YOU COULD GET TO YOUR FIVE ACRES AND DO SOMETHING EASILY BY COMBINING OTHER LOTS. SO THAT WOULD BE A

[01:10:08]

SERIOUS DEVELOPMENT EFFORT. I ALSO AGREE THAT WE OUGHT TO -- BECAUSE I THINK ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES ALONG HERE ALL ARE ON THE SAME BLUFF AND ALL KIND OF ABUT UP TO THE GREENWAY, THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME CONSISTENCY APPLIED THROUGHOUT THEM THAT MAKES SENSE. WHETHER IT'S A PARTICULAR LAND LEVEL OR WETLAND AREA. BUT I THINK WE OUGHT TO TRY TO BE AS CONSISTENT AS POSSIBLE AS WE CAN ACROSS THESE LOTS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN: KELLY, CAN YOU PUT UP THE ONE WHERE YOU ARE SHEING THE PORTION THAT YOU ARE TALKING

ABOUT CHANGING? THE GRAY AREA. >> YES. CHAIRMAN: JUST LOOKING AT THAT PORTION, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SOUTHERN PORTION THERE WHERE IT CURVES, THAT'S 108 FEET. SO THAT'S WHY I AM SAYING, 60 FOOT WIDE YOU COULD START FURTHER EAST ON CREATING SOME KIND OF LIKE A CUL-DE-SAC. I THINK YOU CAN PROBABLY PUT THREE PROPERTIES ON THERE. JUST FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN. FROM WHAT I DO EVERY DAY IN BUSINESS. A GOOD SIR VOWOR AND ARCHITECT CAN GET IN THERE AND FIT SOMETHING IN THERE. BECAUSE MOVING IT BACK PUTS YOUR -- I DON'T HAVE A NUMBER HERE. YOU ARE SHOWING A GRAY AREA AND THE REAL GRAY LINE. ON HERE IT'S PAGE NUMBER 33. THAT ONE YEAH. THAT'S THE ZONING CHANGE TO REMOVE R1 AND ADD CONSERVATION ZONING.

PREVIOUSLY THE R1 ZONING DISTRICT ENDED OUT TO THE CREEK LINE. SO, MOVING ALL OF THAT LAND AREA INTO THAT CONSERVATION ZONING DISTRICT. CHAIRMAN: MY POINT IS JUST WHERE THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY CURVES SOUTH, IF YOU MOVED YOUR CUL-DE-SAC SLIGHTLY WEST AND STARTED FROM THERE, I'M GUESSING I COULD PUT THREE 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS ON THERE AT LEAST.

AND I WON'T BELABOR THE POINT BUT THAT'S MY WHOLE REASONING AGAINST THIS. MOVING IT ALL THE WAY BACK. ADELINE WAS THERE NOW. MOVE IT BACK 20 FEET. THAT TAKES CARE OF THE HOUSE AND MOVE ON. CONSISTENTSY I'M SURE THAT'S AN ISSUE BUT WE HAVE ALL THESE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES AND EVERY ONE OF THEM IS DIFFERENT.

I HAVE A LIGHT ON FOR MR. SHAFER >> I THINK WE'RE KIND OF IN THIS DEBACLE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T SEEM TO MAKE A LOT OF NOTES FOR WHY THEY DID A LOT OF RANDOM LINES. I THINK WE NEED TO BE CONSISTENT AND HAVE REASONING FOR THESE DECISIONS. BUT WE GOT TO THINK PROPERTY RIGHTS TOO. I MEAN, PEOPLE, THEY'RE NOT BAD PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY BACK TO THE EGANS CREEK. BUT I THINK WE SHOULD FOLLOW A CONTOUR THAT ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE. INSTEAD OF JUST DRAWING LINES. BUT I AGREE WITH

STAYING CONSISTENT. CLIM MR. ROLAND. >> BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU. YOU SCOLDED ME LAST TIME FOR TALKING OUT OF TURN MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION WE ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR 0.40 ACRES OF LAND FROM CONSERVATION TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

ALSO AMEND ZONING MAP FOR 0.71 ACRES OF LAND FROM R1 TO CONSERVATION.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL SECOND IT. CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT MR. CLARK SECONDED THAT. DO I HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, SAM?

>> YES >> YES. >> YES.

>> YES. CHAIRMAN: OKAY. WE'LL SEE

OKAY. IS THAT IT? >> BOARD MEMBER: WE HAVE BOARD BUSINESS.

[Items 3 & 6]

CHAIRMAN: OH YEAH. THANK YOU. I'M GLAD I HAVE ALL THIS HELP BYLAWS SUB-COMMITTEE. YES WE DO HAVE ONE OF THOSE. AND BY THE WAY, DOES EVERYONE HAVE THE LAST

[01:15:15]

BY BYLAWS? >> BOARD MEMBER: THEY WERE

CIRCULATED AT THE LAST MEETING. CHAIRMAN: EVERYBODY DID GET ONE? >> WHO IS ON YOUR SUB-COMMITTEE? CHAIRMAN:

ROOM. >> BOARD MEMBER: ALL RIGHT. >> AT 10:00 A.M. UPSTAIRS.

WHICH THE DOOR WILL BE OPEN. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, YOU ARE WELCOME TO ATTEND AND IT WILL BE, YOU KNOW, AN AGENDA AND ALL THAT SAME AS ANY OTHER SUNSHINE LAW MEETING.

CHAIRMAN: YOU WANT TO TELL US MORE ABOUT THE DECEMBER MEETING? >> I WANTED TO TAKE SOME TIME THIS EVENING TO DISCUSS WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD LIKE TO RECEIVE IN TERMS OF DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION AND ALSO ITEMS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER HAVING INCLUDED ON THE SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA WITH THE COMMISSION. I SENT OUT AN EMAIL PREVIOUSLY OUTLINING SORT OF WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE COME FROM THAT MEETING. BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO GET FROM THE BOARD THIS EVENING IS WHAT ARE SOME OF THE POINTS THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HIT AT THAT MEETING AND GET DIRECTION ON. I ALSO WANTED TO GET YOUR IDEAS BEHIND THE FORMAT OF THAT MEETING AND HOW WE SHOULD REQUEST THAT MEETING BE CONDUCTED. CHAIRMAN: MR. CLARK?

>> BOARD MEMBER: WELL, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION WITH THE WHOLE BOARD AND THE PUBLIC BECAUSE I THINK IT IS A REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE. WE STARTED THAT ERA PROCESS, WHICH I THINK FOR ME IS SORT OF TOP OF MIND IN TERMS OF BIG ISSUES THAT WE SHOULD BE WORKING ON, BUT FOLDED INTO THAT IS ONCE THAT'S DONE YOU HAVE A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF WORK IT SEEMS TO ME IN TERMS OF UPDATING THE FLUM AND ZONING AND ALL THE OTHER AS PATHSS OF THE LDC THAT FALL OUT OF THAT. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO TALKING ABOUT AT THIS MEETING THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SORT OF A WORK PROGRAM AS TO HOW IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. BECAUSE I NEAR THAT WITH ALL THE OTHER STUFF THAT'S GOING ON THAT AS WE TRY TO FOCUS ON THOSE BIG PICTURE ISSUES THAT IT KEEPS GETTING SHOVED TO THE SIDE FOR THE NEED TO LOOK AT SOME VERY PRESSING THINGS COMING BEFORE US. SO, THERE'S A CHALLENGE THERE. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE NEED TO SORT OF BE HONEST WITH OURSELVES IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOCATE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO THAT THEN IT'S GOING TO TAKE US A LONG TIME AND WE SHOULD JUST ADMIT THAT UP FRONT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT ANSWER. I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE COMMISSION AND THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET THAT WORK DONE, IF IT REQUIRES ADDITIONAL RESOURCES. IS THERE A WILLINGNESS TO DO THAT? AND THEN WHAT THAT SCHEDULE LOOKS LIKE TO GET THE WORK DONE. BECAUSE THERE IS BEEN A LOT OF BIG ISSUES TALKED ABOUT HERE. I GET IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT ARE ON THE MINDS OF PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC. AND I THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS THOSE. BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THAT DONE UNLESS WE HAVE A VERY SORT OF WELL THOUGHT OUT WORK PLAN AND A COMMITMENT TO GET THE WORK DONE IN SOME SORT OF A ROAM TIMEFRAME. SO, THERE MIGHT BE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT IDEAS TO TALK ABOUT AT THIS JOINT MEETING BUT I HOPE THAT'S ONE OF THEM. CHAIRMAN: I HOPE EVERYONE LOOKED AT KELLY'S NOTES THAT SHE EMAILED TO EVERYBODY ABOUT THAT MEETING TOO. THERE'S A WHOLE LIST HERE OF ITEMS. SO, IF YOU WANT TO PUT THOSE IN SOME KIND OF ORDER OR ADD SOME, I GUESS NOW IS THE TIME TO DO IT

>> I WILL SAY THAT WE DO HAVE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION A REPORT ITSELF. AND THE REGIONAL COUNCIL WILL BE HERE TO SUPPORT THAT PRESENTATION AND GO THROUGH THAT WITH THE BOARD AND COMMISSION TO OUTLINE THE OUTCOME OF WHAT WE RECEIVED FROM THAT. AND THAT WILL BE PROVIDED TO YOU TO REVIEW IN ADVANCE AND TO THEN, OF COURSE, YOU WILL HAVE THE PRESENTATION AT THE MEETING. AND I'VE NOTED IN THE PRIOR EMAIL TO YOU WHAT THOSE THREE MAJOR ISSUES THAT WERE ULTIMATELY DETERMINED FROM THE GREAT DEAL OF COMMENT THAT WE RECEIVED. AND TO ME THE BOTTOM LINE COMES DOWN TO IMPLEMENTATION. AND I THINK THAT THOSE NEXT STEPS AND THE DIRECTION OF IMPLEMENTING THE COMP PLAN IN A REALLY MEANINGFUL WAY BOIL DOWN TO CHANGES IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODING CHANGES IN MAPPING, CHANGES IN STAFF, POLICY AND PROCEDURE, AND EVEN

[01:20:02]

HOW WE LOOK AT TACKLING OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND BUDGETING ANNUALLY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE WORKING THAT PLAN. NOT JUST MAKING THE PLAN BUT TRULY LOOKING AT IT IN AN EFFECTIVE WAY WHERE WE'RE VAL WAITING IT ROUTINELY AND THEN COMMITTING RESOURCES TO IT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. SO I THINK THAT WILL BE THE SORT OF HIGH LEVEL POINT THAT COMES OUT OF THE ERA ITSELF. OF COURSE WITH IT IS A TREMENDOUS RESOURCE IN THE DATA THAT IT WILL PROVIDE TO US TO UTILIZE FOR PLAN AMENDMENTS AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES. BUT I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WAS IN THE INITIAL EMAIL TO YOU. CHAIRMAN: YEAH. PRETTY EXTENSIVE. MR. CLARK?

>> BOARD MEMBER: NO I'M DONE. CHAIRMAN: ANYONE ELSE? >> BOARD MEMBER: DO I HAVE A

LIGHT ON? NO, I DON'T. NOW I DO. CHAIRMAN: YOU DON'T NOW. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE MORE FLUM ERRORS OR FLUM ZONING INCONSISTENCIES IN TERMS OF EVERYTHING WE TOOK THE ORIGINAL SET OF ISSUES AND CHUNKED THEM UP INTO BUCKETS, RIGHT. THEN WE HAVE MORE

BUCKETS SITTING AROUND >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO WE NEED TO

TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THOSE. >> YES. SO, NEXT STEPS. SO THE FIRST ACTION THAT WAS DIRECTED BY THE COMMISSION WAS TO LOOK AT THE INCONSISTENCIES WITHIN THE MAP ITSELF FIRST AS A PRIORITY. AND THIS EVENING THE PLANNING BOARD HAS DONE ITS JOB IN MOVING THOSE FORWARD AND INTO THE COMMISSIONS REALM TO MAKE DECISIONS. THE NEXT STEP THAT WAS DIRECTED WAS TO LOOK AT CONSERVATION LAND USE AND ZONING. SO, THESE ARE PROPERTIES WHERE THERE WASN'T AN INCONSISTENCY WITH THE MAP BUT THAT THE PROPERTIES SHOULD CONTAIN A CONSERVATION LAND USE AND ZONING DISTRICT ON THEM. SO, MOVING INTO DECEMBER, THIS

BOARD WILL REVIEW THOSE CHANGES. >> BOARD MEMBER: FOR THOSE ACTIVITIES, DO WE HAVE A SCHEDULE OF LIKE HOW MUCH IS IT AND SO YOU SAID THEN STARTING NEXT MONTH WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO THIS SECTION? DO WE HAVE A BIGGER PROJECT PLAN THAT SAYS THERE ARE THIS MANY IN THIS CATEGORY, THIS CATEGORY AND THIS CATEGORY AND WE'RE GOING TO CHUNK THEM UP SO WE'RE GOING TO ATTACK THESE IN JANUARY, THESE IN MARCH, THESE IN WHATEVER. I MEAN, DO WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO TACKLE THE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE CONSERVATION BASED CHANGES. THE COMMISSION DID NOT DIRECT ANY CHANGES BEYOND THAT. BECAUSE WE NOTED OTHER ERRORS THAT WEREN'T ANY OF THOSE THINGS. THEY WERE ERRORS IN SPLIT ZONED PROPERTIES, AS AN EXAMPLE, WHERE THEY'RE SXINT BUT THEY CONTAIN TWO OR MORE ZONING LAND USE DISTRICTS ON THEM. THEN THE OTHER AREAS THAT WE HAD NOTED THROUGH THE LARGER ANALYSIS THAT WAS COMPLETED WAS PROPERTIES THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING WITH THEIR LAND USE AND ZONING DISTRICT AND HOW DO WE WANT TO TREAT THOSE. AT THIS TIME WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY DIRECTION FOR

PURSUING CHANGES ON EITHER OF THOSE. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO WE REALLY JUST HAVE ONE MORE CHUNK OF WORK? AS DIRECTED BY THE COMMISSION

>> YES. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. SO, MAY BE SOMETHING IN THIS NEXT MEETING IS TO TALK ABOUT, WE HAVE THESE OTHER ISSUES, HOW HIGH PRIORITY IS IT FOR US TO WORK ON THOSE VERSUS SOME THINGS COMING OUT OF THE OTHER REPORTS AND THE LETTER YOU SENT OUT TO THE COMMISSION ABOUT HOW -- ALL THE DEVELOPMENT ISSUES AND IF YOU WANTED TO DO A MORATORIUM OR ALL OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. I MEAN, IT JUST SEEMS TO ME WHAT WE SHOULD COME AWAY WITH IN THIS JOINT MEETING IS A LIST OF PRIORITIES THAT THEN THE STAFF CAN COME BACK WITH A PROJECT PLAN THAT SAYS THIS IS HOW I AM GOING TO ATTACK THEM AND THIS IS THE TIMEFRAMES. WE MAY NOT MEET THEM, BUT YOU STILL NEED TO HAVE TIMEFRAMES RIGHT. SO I AM GOING DO THIS AND THIS AND THIS IN AND ORDERLY FASHION. IT GIVES I THINK US SOME STRUCTURE ON THE BOARD AND I THINK IT WOULD GIVE

THE STAFF A LOT OF STRUCTURE TOO >> YES. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. THAT'S ALL. CHAIRMAN: ARE WE WORKING ON AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH PROPERTIES THAT WANT TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY TO BE DEVELOPED UNDER OUR RULES? I KNOW THAT'S BEEN MENTIONED AND IT'S SOMETHING I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR SEVERAL YEARS

>> SO THERE IS A DRAFT IN THE LOCAL AGREEMENT THAT HAS BEEN CIRCULATED TO NASSAU COUNTY STAFF FOR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION THAT WAS ONE OF MY GOALS FOR THIS YEAR IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. IT WAS ALSO DIRECTED FROM THE LAST JOINT COUNTY AND CITY MEETING IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR. SO, THAT DRAFT HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND IS PENDING REVIEW AND ACTION BY BOTH BODIES AT THIS TIME. IT DOES NOT GO AS FAR AS, I BELIEVE, WHAT THE COMMISSION AND

[01:25:05]

THE PLANNING BOARD MAY WANT TO SEE, WHICH IS FULL REVIEW UNDER THE CITY'S ORDINANCES FOR DEVELOPMENT. AND THERE'S SOME LEGAL ISSUES WITH ATTEMPTING TO DO THAT AS WELL AS STAFFING ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH IT. BUT I'VE SUGGESTED IN THAT ILA SOME STRATEGIES FOR ALIGNING OUR CODES AND A REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THE ISLAND WHERE WE ANTICIPATE THAT THEY WOULD COME INTO THE CITY. AND WORKING ON CHANGES THAT WOULD BRING THEM INTO ALIGNMENT WITH EACH OTHER SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THESE, YOU KNOW, VERY DIFFERENT REVIEW PARAMETERS THAT EACH PROPERTY IS CONSIDERED UNDER BUT THAT NASSAU COUNTY COULD CONTINUE TO DO THEIR WORK INDEPENDENTLY AND THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH WOULD DO THEIR WORK IN REVIEW OF PROJECTS AS THEY MOVE IN.

CHAIRMAN: THE PROGRAM WAS CONTIGUOUS TO CITY LIMITS. THERE'S NOTHING STOPPING US FROM

SAYING ANNEX THEN BUILD UNDER OUR RULES >> THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE VERY DIRECTLY TO INDICATE WHERE CONTIGUOUS YOU WOULD GO AHEAD AND INITIATION ANNEXATION PROCEDURES. THERE WON'T BE THIS SORT OF BACK AND FORTH. WE'RE GOING TO DEVELOP OVER HERE IN NASSAU COUNTY THEN LATER COME IN. NO, EVERYTHING WOULD BE DONE BY THE CITY AND THEIR STAFF WOULD THEN HAVE THAT LATITUDE TO DIRECT THOSE APPLICANTS TO JUST

COME ON IN AND TALK WITH US. CHAIRMAN: OKAY. >> BOARD MEMBER: I WAS JUST

GOING TO ADD TO WHAT GENOSEE SAID EARLIER. >> JANIECE.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I APOLOGIZE >> GENOSEE IS A BEER. >> BOARD MEMBER: I WON'T COMMENT. THE IDEA OF A PRIORITY LIST I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU FOR THE JOINT MEETING TO HAVE SORT OF A LIST OF ALL THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE TOUCHED ON HERE THAT WERE IN YOUR MEMO.

SO, WHEN WE'RE AT THE MEETING THERE'S SOMEONE IN THE COMMISSION CAN REACT TO. YOU KNOW, LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT THE EIR UPDATES AND THINGS THAT FOLLOW OUT OF THAT. BUT IF WE

DON'T HAVE THAT LIST, I AM AFRAID WE WON'T BE AS PRODUCTIVE >> OKAY.

>> IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE A BLANK PAGE MEETING >> I'LL DEVELOP A PUNCH LIST FOR

US AND THEN ASK FOR PRIORITY RANKING >> BOARD MEMBER: THEN I THINK THE THING I WAS SAYING EARLIER ABOUT RESOURCES. I THINK YOU NEED TO BE CLEAR WITH EVERYBODY.

EVERYONE CAN'T JUST REFERRING STUFF TO YOU AND EXPECT IT TO HAPPEN UNLESS THERE'S SOME

RESOURCE ASSOCIATED WITH IT >> ABSOLUTELY. CHAIRMAN: DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING

TO ADD >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE ANNEXATION YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT. TO BE CLEAR, MOSTLY FOR THE PUBLIC, BECAUSE I THINK YOU ALL KNOW. ANNEXATION DOESN'T HAPPEN UNLESS THAT PROPERTY OWNER ASKS TO COME INTO THE CITY. HAS TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT AND WHAT PROMPTS THAT IS THAT THEY NEED WATER AND SEWER. SO, IF IT IS AVAILABLE TO THEM, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO ASK FOR THE WATER AND SEWER. ONCE THEY DO THAT THEY HAVE TO SIGN AN SO, U THAT, IF THE PROPERTY'S CONTIGUOUS, I THINK STAFF IS VERY CLEAR THEY NEED TO PROCESS THAT ANNEXATION IMMEDIATELY. AND KELLY AND I DID ATTEND ALONG WITH OUR CITY MANAGER A MEETING WITH THE COUNTY LAST WEEK. MR. MULLIN, THE PLANNING STAFF AND -- YEAH, THAT WAS -- THEIR PLANNING STAFF, TO TALK ABOUT THAT. THEY SEEM AT LEAST, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, BUT AMENABLE TO CHANGING THEIR CODES TO MATCH OURS. TREE ORDINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO IT SEEMS VERY POSITIVE. AND THEY DON'T SEE ANY REASON EVEN IF THEY COULD GUESS THAT THE ELECTED OFFICIALS WOULDN'T AGREE ALSO. CHAIRMAN: YOU HAVE A LIGHT ON. KELLY YOU WANTED TO ADD

SOMETHING >> JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. IF A PROPERTY IS CON TIEING RUSS IN THE CITY'S LIMITS TODAY, THERE IS NOT A WATER/SEWER AGREEMENT THAT IS DETERMINED. THEY WOULD NICHE YEATS AN ANNEXATION. ASSIGNMENT OF LAND USE AND ZONING UNDER THE CODE. AS DIRECTED IT WOULD GO THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD AND TO THE COMMISSION FIRST. SO, THERE'S NO NEED FOR WATER/SEWER AGREEMENT IN CA IN THAT CASE BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO ANNEX INTO THE CITY AND BE PART OF THE CITY FROM THE BEGINNING. CHAIRMAN: THAT HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE. WE HAD THE HOTEL THEY DEVELOPED IN THE CITY AND TO BE ANNEXED AFTERWARDS AND

THEY'RE CONTIGUOUS CORRECT >> RIGHT. AND THE INNER-LOCAL AGREEMENT WOULD ADDRESS THAT SCENARIO DIRECTLY BY STATING, WHERE CONTIGUOUS YOU WILL START THAT PROCEDURE. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO COME INTO OUR OFFICES, DO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, GO THROUGH OUR REVIEW CRITERIA, THEN LATER REQUEST WATER AND SEWER. WHERE YOU ARE DEPENDENT ON WATER AND SEWER AND YOU ARE

[01:30:02]

CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY LIMITS, YOU ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND INITIATE THAT VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION LAND USE AND ZONING ASSIGNMENT. CHAIRMAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. DO

YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE STAFF REPORT? >> I DON'T. BY THE END OF THIS WEEK YOU WILL RECEIVE AN EMAIL. IT WILL BE ANOTHER LENGTHY EMAIL. I APOLOGIZE BUT IT'S JUST THE WEIGHT OF SOME OF THE THINGS YOU ARE CONSIDERING. IN THAT EMAIL, WE WILL LOOK AT THE UPDATES THAT YOU WILL CONSIDER FOR NEXT MONTH SO THAT YOU HAVE THEM WITHIN A TIMEFRAME THAT YOU CAN REALLY TAKE A LOOK AT THEM IN ADVANCE. YOU WILL HAVE BOTH THE LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH CONSERVATION PROPERTIES SO WE CAN GET THOSE NOTICED PROPERLY FOR THE DECEMBER MEETING. AND IN ADDITION TO THAT YOU WILL HAVE REVIEW OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT SPECIFIC TO BUILDING HEIGHTS TO REFRESH SOME OF YOUR MEMORY. BACK IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR AND EVEN BEFORE THAT, IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR, I BELIEVE, THE BOARD WAS CONTEMPLATING CHANGES FOR CALCULATION OF BUILDING HEIGHTS. AND SPECIFICALLY CHANGING HOW WE MEASURE OR EXEMPT MECHANICAL STRUCTURES, PET WALLS, THINGS WHICH MAY GO BEYOND THE BUILDING HEIGHT. SO THAT LANGUAGE, WE STILL HAVE IT, MOVING IN A FORMAL APPLICATION, IT WILL RETURN TO YOU BUT I WILL RETURN WITH SUGGESTIONS FOR HOW TO TREAT MEASUREMENT OF BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN. THIS IS DIRECTION THAT COMES AFTER MANY MONTHS OF SPECIAL MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS ON OUR REVISED FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE. AND SO THERE IS FINALLY SOME DIRECTION THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED. THAT EFFORT HAD BEEN STALLED PREVIOUSLY HERE AT THE PLAINING BOARD LEVEL KIND OF WAITING TO HEAR HOW WE MIGHT WANT TO TREAT PROPERTIES WITHIN A FLOOD PLAIN.

SO, YOU WILL HAVE THAT LANGUAGE TO YOU. I HAVE IT READY TODAY. I JUST DON'T HAVE IT PRINTED AND I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR YOU TO RECEIVE IT BY EMAIL. CHAIRMAN: I'VE GOT A QUESTION ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY. THE HOTEL ON ATLANTIC. THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST OF THAT LOOKS LIKE THEY FILLED IT AND IT'S ABOUT EASY TO SAY FOUR ON FIVE FEET ABOVE THE ROAD. IS THAT PROPER?

>> I'VE NOT -- I HAVEN'T GONE DOWN TO THAT AREA RECENTLY. CHAIRMAN: WELL IF YOU GO DOWN AND LOOK, IT'S EASILY -- IT'S VERY NOTICEABLE. IT LOOKS LIKE THEY FILLED IT WITH SHELL ROCK OR SOMETHING. IT'S LITERALLY PROBABLY AT LEAST THAT HIGH ABOVE THE ROAD. SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS SOMETHING PERMANENT OR SOMETHING THAT JUST IS A TEMPORARY STORAGE BECAUSE

THEY'RE DOING ALL THE OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE HOTEL. >> I CAN ASK ABOUT THAT. I'M NOT SURE. I SUSPECT IT IS MORE OF A STAGING TYPE OF ACTIVITY BUT I CAN FIND OUT FOR YOU.

CHAIRMAN: ANYONE ELSE BEFORE I ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NONE. WOULD ANY OF YOU ALL LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANYTHING YOU WANT TO? THIS IS YOUR CHANCE OKAY. SEEING NO ONE VOLUNTEERING, I GUESS WE'RE DONE. THANK YOU

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.